injustice will come to its end. >> [speaking another language] >> keep fighting, do not give up. i wish all of you love and justice. keep going. thank you so much. [cheers and applause] >> [speaking spanish] ♪ dasha: welcome to "ceasefire" where we seek to bridge the divide in american politics. i am dasha burns political white house bureau chief and today --

this week i sat down with president donald trump at the white house for a wide-ranging interview for my podcast "the conversation." joining me to dissect the key moments from my 45 minute conversation with president trump are two political pros from both sides of the aisle. republican strategist marc short, top aide to president trump in the first administration as well as former chief to vice president mike pence. and democratic strategist adrienne elrod who began her career in the clinton administration and has been a top aide to four presidential campaign and senior advisor to vice president harris's campaign. welcome to you both. now i know you both have done the surrogate game. today you're doing the strategist game for me. peel back the curtain on how your parties are navigating this moment, especially in the context of some of what we just heard from president trump in my interview. the white house has been a making a push on domestic

issues, especially economy. take a listen to my conversation about affordability. i do want to talk about the economy. i wonder what grade you would give the economy. pres. trump: a plus. dasha: i talked to our supporter, melanie from west moreland county p.a. and she loves you. she gave you overall an a plus plus grade. but here's what she said about the economy. she said "groceries, utilities insurance and the basic cost of running small business keep rising faster than wages. she also says that not enough is being done. mr. president, this is one of your supporters. pres. trump: i love her, because she said i got an a plus on everything i guess. well, you have to understand the word affordability. i inherited a mess. i inherited a total mess. prices were at an all-time high

when i came in. prices are coming down substantially. look at energy purdue and i discussed before the interview energy. energy has come down incredibly. when energy comes down, it is so much bigger than any other -- but energy has come down incredibly. prices are all coming down. it has been 10 months. it is amazing what we've done. if you think of gasoline a gallon, they headed at $4.50. some states had it at $6.00. he hit three states, two days ago, $1.99 a gallon. now everything is coming down with beef i have just open that up where beef is going to start coming down. dasha: a lot to dissect. i want to start with you. what you think about this tragedy from the president on the issue of affordability? marc: i think it is a primary challenge for republicans. that he's right. there was record inflation during the biden years. there were enormous spending by

democrats. and he inherited much of that, but 12 months later, americans are looking at what is the release plan. i think the president deserves a lot of credit for lowering energy prices. dasha: does he deserve a plus p lus? marc: but i think the traded judgment has been an unmitigated disaster and i think what you see if you were to tell people that your energy prices would be 25% less and you'd still be suffering from high costs of inflation, i think that is a big challenge that illustrates how bad the trade agenda is. so i think they have their hands full and trying to explain this to the american people, once they change the direction on the trade agenda. dasha: how does this compare to what president biden saying and doing on the economy? adrienne: number one let's keep in mind that president biden mitigated a major recession from happening because he inherited covid. that was something inherited a covid economy. the first thing he did in office was past the american rescue plan to make sure that we didn't

go into recession. yes, we're dealing with inflation and so are other countries around the world. it is the reality of the situation, now i will say this. i was on president biden's campaign. i think something we probably should not have done or we could have done a better job of doing is going out there to the american people and saying, actually the economy is really really good. you may not be feeling it but it is good could we have record gdp growth, we have got record unemployment. i can name all of the stats. we created 15 million jobs under president biden. but if the american people are not feeling that strong economy, you start to lose credibility with them and that is exactly what is happening with president trump right now. he said he won the election because he went out there and said i will lower prices for you. i am going to make sure that you can afford food, you can afford to heat your home, you can afford everyday bills that costs families are facing. gas prices have gone down a

little but but the have largely gone up. at the end of the day, the phrase james carville famously coined "it's the economy, stupid." which is why you seem democrats massively over performing in special elections and the reason why that you saw mikie sherrill and abigail spanberger outperform significantly republicans in their governor's race is. and it is the reason why democrats are going into the midterms next year with some wind at their backs because we are making, we are winning the affordability discussion and i think until trump does something to lower costs, american families are going to side with democrats. dasha: the president is committed to playing a huge role in the midterms. he wants to keep the house. the stakes are high for him, for his team come for his agenda. how does he do that with this messaging on the economy? what is your advice to him and to republicans looking at next year? marc: well, let me get back to

one thing that -- called "ceasefire." i think it is important to remind people that the time joe biden was sworn into office, all three vaccines were on the market, we were over the worst of covid. they used it as a reason for all sorts of democratic social program spending. that drove up our inflation. i think for the president headed into the midterms, the challenge will continue to be the economy. i think his first administration , a great play brick of lowering taxes, deregulation and the tariff agenda was targeted towards china. right now you have a tariff agenda that is basically worldwide. on friend and foe alike. it is driving up prices. and the regulatory agenda i think is different, too. it was very deregulatory in the first administration and now we have this deal with warner bros. and basically now once the administration, the administration wants to step in because jared's an investor to paramount. that is not the way the first

administration approach these things. they would allow these transactions to move forward which is good for the economy. dasha: what keeps you up at night when he think about the midterm landscape for republicans? marc: i think it will be a steep climb. the reality is that americans like divided government. they do not want one party in control. each time there has been a backlash. just like in the 2018 midterms when republicans had control, democrats had a big year, in 2022, when democrats controlled everything, republicans had a great year. i think you're going to see likely a democrat year in the midterms. the question is how do you mitigate that? the reality is that so many of our house districts are drawn today with gerrymandering for each side. there is fewer really, uh, districts that are competitive. dasha: more that will be gerrymandered. marc: more will be gerrymandered. i do think there will be a swing but the question is, remember to date myself, the hill staffer in

2010 went after the obamacare passage, there were 63 seats republicans picked up. it is hard to think you will have a swing or even 40 in 2018. i think the margins as tightest they are, potentially one or two seats you got to favored the democrats in the midterms. dasha: the problems for republicans, how do democrats capitalize on that? adrienne: look, in particular i think hakeem jeffries is done a really good job of capitalizing and to an extent chuck schumer. although his caucus is wavering more. than than the house is. but you have to draw the contrast. you have to show what you are fighting for. this goes for both republicans and mark is exactly right. when one party is in full control, the other party tends to even if they sat there on their laurels and did nothing, they would tend to benefit from that because americans do like divided government. in terms of capitalizing, i think several things.

number one, democrats have done a good job of holding republicans feet to the fire unaffordability and obviously on health care subsidies. which will by the way expire on january 1. dasha: we will get to that. adrienne: falls into the affordability argument. i think democrats have to put forward a forward-looking agenda that talks about what they are actually standing for. i think one of the challenges that democrats have right now, and this is for the first time in a long time is there is not an era. that will be the democratic nominee. who is the messenger? we do not have that one person everyone is looking to, president obama has taken a step back. although he is still our party's leader in many -- in many respects. which is wild when you think about it. that is the challenge. laying out to the american people what they stand for. i know this is not the topic of today show but but i hope that we will have a robust primary in 2027 going into 2028. i think american single course

of strong democrats going out and articulating the vision -- dasha: we will get there. don't worry. i want to talk about the health care, consumers are feeling the squeeze on health care cost. affordable care act subsidies are set to expire at the end of the month. many could see premium sky rocket. the president discussed the future of health care with me. take a listen. two weeks, mr. president, people will see premiums go up. so will you tell congress to extend those obamacare subsidies while you -- pres. trump: i would have to see. i would like to get better health care, i would like to help people by their own health care. and what i want to do for example i want to give the money to the people. not to the insurance companies. dasha: right now buying holiday presents. pres. trump: don't be dramatic. i know. what i want to do is help them. i want to give --

i'm giving the money. i want to give the money to the people to buy their own health care. that is a good thing, not a bad thing for the democrats do not want to do that. they want the insurance companies to make a fortune. the democrats are owned by the insurance companies. they want the insurance companies to get this trillions of dollars. we spent trillions of dollars goes to the insurance companies. i want that money to go to the people and let the people go out and buy their own health care. it works like magic. but you know who does not want? the democrats. because they are corrupt people because they are bought by insurance companies. dasha: most like a premiums will go up and you will find another test pres. trump: well, premiums could go down if you did what i want to do. i want to give the money. ready? i want to give the people better health care insurance for less money. the people get the money and they will buy health insurance

they want. dasha: we did not hear him say anything there about pushing for an extension to these subsidies. i mean, you heard me talk about it there, it does seem like with the way he's discussing it right now people might expect those premiums to go up while the republicans try to figure out another plan. marc, what's happening? marc: obamacare, otherwise known as the affordable care act, turns out not to be very affordable. the reality is that 15 years later, the prices continue to go up. even the democrats promising to people they will go down. democrats passed obamacare. they went to the insurance companies and promised them to get their support, they would include subsidies up to 400% of the poverty level. then during the biden years, they added onto that additional subsidy support above 400%, so people making hundreds of thousands of dollars get subsidies to pay for health insurance. it is a broken system. the challenge for republicans as we do not have an alternative. and i think there is probably

support among a lot of republicans who are fearful in light of the fact that there is affordability crisis out there, say we're ar concerned our constituents will not have these subsidies. they will end up moving forward. and i think it is well known the president polls, has putting out a lot of polls saying this is a challenge. you hear the president let's give it to individuals. it does not solve the problem. you are taking subsidies and redirecting it. i get the insurance companies are not popular but that is not solving the underlying problem of actually offering free market reforms on health care. dasha: that is the problem in this immediate moment. we heard the president say he has some ideas from an alternative plan whether you like his plan or not, all of that is going to take time. that is not going on the floor tomorrow as far as i know. who knows, right? they could put something there but right now and less there is passage of something, premiums are going to go up.

and how damaging could that be for republicans? marc: it is hard to see how they get something done before christmas. i think there will be democrats votes that will be shut down. there will be republicans who offer alternatives that will not have sufficient votes. i suspect in the first quarter of next year he will come back and say let's pass that provides retroactive subsidy support. i am not supportive of that. again, i feel like, you know the republicans are following the democrat game of providing more subsidies. you are not fixing the health-care crisis. i think obamacare has been a disaster. and that is what you're paying for today. is there are promises they were lower insurance, promising lower health care costs and is not here to help their costs are out of control because you've socialized medicine in america. dasha: a lot of people would agree with some of his points about either democrat or republican -- marc: to some? [laughter] dasha: we would get a pole. there are a ton of americans regardless of party would say to health care system in this country is just not working. for them.

democrats during the shutdown made health care a headline for weeks and weeks and weeks. where do they go with it from here? adrienne: marc hit the nail on the head by making it clear that when january hits and those subsidies go up, i think that is when you start to see both sides start to kinda figure out especially republicans, who are in control of the house and senate and have all the power, to make these decisions, come to the table and say we have to do something about this. but here is a little bit of pushback to some of the things marc said, do i think the affordable care act needs reforms? absolute. 99.9 percent of democrats would believe that, too. but it is popular with a lot of americans who could not get health care before obamacare was passed whether they had a pre-existing condition, whether health care access was just way beyond their means in terms of being able to afford it. but reforms do need to be made. i think republicans, if republicans were earnestly wanting to make reforms, they would have tried a very long

time before we got close to the government shutdown for the bottom line is this, we go into january, millions of americans will see their health care premiums spiked by 26% and some even higher. that is what i think you will see both sides come to the table to the pressure will be on democrats as well. it is not just going to be republicans, even though republicans have control of the house in the white house because the american people are going to say, we want to see congress, went to see our government do something about this. we cannot afford to pay it. dasha: i want to hit marc's favorite topic, tariffs. there is been a lot of debate. the white house has carved out some of the exceptions on some electronics and food products. i asked the president what else could be under consideration? consider more carveouts on other goods that americans find too expensive? pres. trump: you mean from tariffs. dasha: like coffee, like bananas. pres. trump: i've done that already with coffee. they are very small. let me tell you about the real economy. we have $18 trillion coming into

our country. biden had a less than $1 trillion for four years and was heading south. our country was falling apart. 18 trillion because of tariffs. $18 trillion has come into our country. i think because of tariffs and the november for the election if you want to know the truth. dasha: would you allow reducing tariffs on anymore goods? pres. trump: on some. and on some i will increase terrorist because you know what happens is because of tariffs al l the car companies are coming back. we lost 58% of the automobile business. we had a monopoly on the world. we had everything. and because we had presidents that weren't smart and did not have business sense and the people did not do a good job, they could've kept that. we had with hunt percent of the chip market intel, all of these, they came in to see me, intel. they needed something to be done by the government. i said, i'm going to do it but i think you have to give us a 10% of your company. you know what happened? we made $40 billion per the

price went through the roof. the united states in about 10 minutes i made $40 billion. nobody talks about that. dasha: this week the president announced an aid package. that he says will be funded by tariff revenue. for people at home can found about this whole thing, can you the imposing tariffs then using that funding to help out farmers suffering from tariffs? marc: let's keep in mind that americans pay the tariffs. the tariffs are collected by customs and border patrol at the border when the product arrives. and the american importer pays that tax. so, the notion that foreigners are going to be paying the tariffs is a misnomer. it is not true. americans pay the vast majority of tariffs. so what you're doing is you are assessing attacks on farmers to import fertilizer and products they use and paying them back on the back end with

those same tax dollars as a bailout for a policy that is not working. the $12 billion bailout that went to farmers to pay for the trade agenda is basically the same money they paid to import products into the united states. so, it's hard to think of an administration much less a republican administration, that is ever had more central planners in economic department than this one. dasha: you were in the first trump administration. he is talked about tariffs forever. why does he love tariffs? marc: he has been very consistent in his supportive tariffs. dasha: one of the few things he's been consistent on. marc: but again, in the first administration with tariffs, there were some on aluminum, but predominately they were targeted towards china. and helped get the world aligned into isolate china. the second administration has imposed tariffs on japan and korea, some of our best trading partners who basically if we had strong relations with them and put more pressure on china. right now you are sending many of our former trading

partners into the hands of china because they get better trade deals. the first administration did have some tariffs, you are right but it was very targeted. what this is doing is across-the-board, and you would not need a bailout for farmers. america has a great agricultural exporters. but you basically cut that off. now you have to be a lot farmers with the very policies you have imposed upon them. dasha: i talked to democrats and republicans in congress that feel that congress should have more authority over the president's authority on tariffs, they should curb his tariff power somehow. how would you advise democrats to tackle this issue, whether in policy or messaging? what should they be doing here? adrienne: first of all i would literally have them watch what marc just said because he explained why this tariff policy is so ineffective and why it is ultimately driving up the cost for consumers which means it is going back under the umbrella of affordability. but i think something that marc

said that i think members of congress, democrats, should continue to make, and governors, anybody who is representing a constituency who is impacted by this is the fact that we are going after some of our top, not just trading allies but are top allies that we have formed alliances with. since america became america. and we are attacking them and we are imposing these arcane tariff trade policies on them. what are they doing? they are going to china and saying, let's make a deal. it is actually going to have, having a net negative benefit on the american consumer. it is insensible. it is like he came in to start making up things or saying things that enacting trade policies are tariff policies that did not have a lot of substance or thought behind them. and it's now coming home to roost for a lot of consumers

because it is not lowering costs. dasha: there is a supreme court's case about this. and there is a world in which the supreme court decides to overturn some of these tariffs. marc, i'm curious. are there any republicans you talk to who are like secretly hoping that the supreme court does put the kibosh on this? marc: of course. i think republicans have been pro-trade. traditionally it has been more democrats. the labor unions had a protectionist trade policy. it is upside down right now. unfortunately they are not willing to -- they do not want to go against this administration. article i section 8 is clear that this responsibility belongs to the legislative branch. it belongs to the legislative branch. there is no confusion if you were to read that. and so, i suspect the president will lose on this, because he is using an arcane law that does not mention tariffs. i suspect he will but the challenge is there are so many

other levers the president has. that he will use. it will not deter his trade agenda. section 122, section 301, they continue to advance a tariff agenda. but absolutely, there are plenty of republicans in congress who want to reclaim that authority but they are unwilling to because they do not want to get on the wrong side of the president politically. dasha: i wanted to turn to another story that is been in the headlines for the last several weeks which is venezuela, particularly those boat strikes. secretary of defense pete hegseth said he was not in the room during the second strike, but he said the right decision was made. the president weighed in on the controversy and gave me an assessment of what the video shows. as you want to talk about the boat strikes. the defense secretary, should he testify, pete hegseth, under oath about that controversial second strike on the alleged drug boat? pres. trump: i don't care if he does. dasha: do you think you should?

pres. trump: do it if you want. he's doing a great job. dasha: have you watch the video? pres. trump: i watch everything. i see a lot of things. dasha: do you believe the second strike was necessary. pres. trump: it looked like they were trying to turn over the boat. i don't get involved in that. that is up to them. the admiral who was involved and that was a how to respect and mentored we saved 25,000, they killed 25,000 americans on average. you know, i don't like doing that but the drugs coming in through the sea are down by 92%. and i'm trying to figure out the 8%, who are the? nobody wants to drive boats to america loaded up the drugs anymore. we will hit them on land very soon, too. dasha: almost all the illicit fentanyl is produced in mexico using chemicals from china

according to the dea. and venezuela is not a significant source or transit country for fentanyl, it barely appears on dea's trafficking assessments. pres. trump: they do sell lots of drugs for those boats come in from venezuela. i would say that is significant. you can see the drugs, you can see these bag, just bags and bags. let me tell you what they do do, they send really bad people into our country. and they have done it better than anybody else. they emptied their prisons into our country. and these prisoners are seriously tough. all of their prisons have been emptied into the united states of america. murders, 11,000 murderers. dasha: is it about making sure maduro sees justice? pres. trump: 11,888 murderers rented in our country and stupid joe took them. we are getting them out of putting them in jail.

some are so dangerous and so bad that we do not want to put them back in their country because it will find a way to get back in. but these are stone cold murderers. but every time we knock out a boat we saved 25,000 american lives. dasha: would you consider doing something similar with mexico and colombia? pres. trump: i would. dasha: so, marc, what is the balance for the president in terms of foreign policy and domestic politics because there are people in his own bass that are not thrilled with the action he's taken with venezuela. marc: well, as commander-in-chief he has a responsibility to protect our shores. for a lot of americans i think he's doing a great job in securing the border. i think that there is a lot of american communities that have been ravaged by the importation of illegal drugs. and so, thinki think there is a lot of support for this progress. having said that, i do think it should go to congress and explained this is what our policy is going to be. i also think they should be

transparent about the incident -- the incident that happened with this boat. if they have every reason to defend it and show the video, then so be it. i think americans would be supportive of the policy. you have to be careful that we do set ourselves apart. the men and women who serve our armed forces are some of the most remarkable men and women in the world. and we are not like russia and the way they invaded ukraine and rape and murder innocent people. i think is important world knows we are different. and so i think that look, sometimes there will be mistakes that should be explained but at the same time i think there is general support for the president's policy. they should be transparent about it. dasha: there are two things at issue. there is that boat strikes and transparency around that that there is also the fact of what are we doing in venezuela? we kind of got to a little bit of that with the president but i heard republicans wondering this, right? and generally the president campaigned on a policy of

america first, not getting involved in foreign wars and foreign entanglements and regime change. is this politically dangerous for him? adrienne: yeah, something i also heard he said to you is we will go to their shores, too. dasha: we will have them on land very soon. adrienne: hit them online. that should be, set off alarm bells to the a lot of the american people. we are going to war with venezuela? what does that mean? marc: sometimes the president uses language as a warning sign. what they were trying to do is they wanted maduro to leave voluntarily. if they ratchet up the pressure rhetorically. i would be surprised if we send land troops in. i think it is possible. you will see strikes on not unknown drug laws. dasha: in our conversation he did not rule it in or out that we would have american troops on the ground. adrienne: a lot of americans of course they want to keep bad drugs out of our country, illegal drugs out of our country. but let's also give mind that

90% of fentanyl comes from the southern border and not from venezuela. and secondly, i think there are a lot of people especially people who have served our military who are looking at that and saying, this is not how we use the u.s. military to indiscriminately take down a boat. that may or may not have drugs on it. it does not settle well with the a lot of the american people. i think democrats have done a democrats have done a good job drawing that distinction of calling for the release of the video. the american people should be able to make this decision for themselves, whether this seems like a lawful thing to do. two, people understand a war crime when they see it. if they want to be transparent, which trump says he wants to be, release the video so everyone can make this decision for themselves. marc: we should be careful to not assess there is a potential war crime. i don't think there was any doubt there were drugs on the boat.

you have noncombatants who are then hanging onto the boat, it is the military's responsibility to eliminate them? what our military has often done is save those who at that point are disarmed, to protect them. dasha: at the end of the exchange you just heard, he said he would consider doing something similar with the countries i mentioned that are more responsible for trafficking drugs in mexico and colombia. do you think that is realistic? do you think that his rhetoric to warn those countries? marc: i think it is both. i think it is rhetoric he uses to try to get leverage, but at the same time i think americans are tired of the amount of fentanyl and other drugs coming into the nation. if we know where their labs are, with a support strikes to take out those labs? i think americans would. dasha: i want to turn to

ukraine because a lot of our conversation was about europe, his and by on the continent -- his impact on the continent. i want you to take a listen. the white house has been serving as an intermediary between the sides, helping to draft peace proposals. i asked president trump about the future of ukraine and how long the u.s. will stay engaged. is it time for ukraine to hold an election do you think? pres. trump: yeah, i think so. it's been a long time. it has not been doing particularly well. i think it is a perfect time to hold an election. they are using war not to hold an election, but i think the ukrainian people should have that choice. maybe zelenskyy would win, i don't know. they have not had an election in a long time. it gets to a point where it is not a democracy anymore. dasha: on sunday, donald trump, jr. responded to reporters about

whether you will walk away from ukraine. your son said, i think he may. is that correct? pres. trump: no, it is not correct, but not exactly wrong. they have to play ball if they don't read agreements, potential agreements. russia has the upper hand, and they always did. they are much bigger and stronger in that sense. i give ukraine -- i give the people of ukraine and the military of ukraine tremendous credit for the bravery and the fighting, all of that, but at some point, size will win generally. and this is a massive size. we take a look at the numbers, the numbers are just crazy. this is not a war that should have happened. it would have never happened if i were president. so sad. millions are dead, many soldiers. last month they lost 27,000 soldiers. and some people from missiles

being launched into kyiv and other places. what a sad thing for humanity. our country is no longer paying any money. biden, if he would not have given the money, something different would've happened. pu had no respect -- putin had no respect for biden or zelenskyy. they really hate each other. the problem is they hate each other really a lot. it is hard for them to make a deal. it is harder than most. i settled eight wars. i would have said this would have been the easiest ones, or one of the easier ones. i settled one that was going on for 36 years. i settled pakistan and india, so many wars, i'm proud of it.

i do it pretty easily. it is not hard for me to do. this one is tough. one of the reasons is the level of hatred between putin and zelenskyy is tremendous. dasha: you told me when we were chatting that you were pretty struck by this part of the interview and just how far the president went in his rhetoric on ukraine. adrienne: i was surprised how much he leaned into russia. we have certainly seen over time that he tends to embrace dictators more so than presidents of democratic nations. i was surprised to see how much he leaned into russia winning right now. i think we have to take a step back and look at this from the 30,000 foot perspective. i remember a time 14 months ago when the president of the united states, joe biden, always sided with a democracy over a dictator, the democracy leader over a dictator.

we are literally seeing the president of the free world, maybe one day he's pro ukraine, may be the next he's pro russia. it is incredibly dangerous, incredibly irresponsible. it should terrify every american who believes in democracy and that is what we stand for as a country. that is one of the reasons why we are so proud of being americans, because we live in a free country. we live under a democracy. may be marc can tell us, maybe this is part of trump's negotiating tactic with zelenskyy/putin, maybe be there's underlying strategy to the way he approached that, but it felt very meandering. it felt like he was not sure what tact he should take. i was surprised, and frankly disturbed to see how much he leaned into russia during his discussion with you. dasha: is this the art of the deal? marc: disturbing draws a moral

equivalence between zelenskyy and putin. putin has stolen children from ukraine and sold them. he's authorized the raping of women in the country. this is not a moral equivalence. there is one aggressor here. the reality is in the first administration, the president was very proud of the fact that he talked about president obama sending blankets to ukraine, and he sent javelin missiles. he was proud of having defended ukraine in the first administration. for a lot of people, the assumption was the war would be over in three weeks. here we are more than three weeks later and they have not been allowed to defend themselves, even though the biden administration sent them weapons. i don't know why we are not providing the resources to ukraine to defend themselves. nobody's talking about sending american troops there. that is often used as a red herring as to what interventionists want. no one is recommended that. why not give them the resources

to defend themselves? if we allow putin to get away with this, it is a matter of time before he goes somewhere else. since he's been a dictator in russia, he took georgia during the bush administration. he took crimea during the obama administration. he's now taken a large part of ukraine. he's not going to stop. if you reward him with this, he will keep going. dasha: what do you make for the president's call for ukraine to hold an election? marc: i think zelenskyy has been willing to do that on certain occasions. he continues to say he will be reelected. dasha: he brought up the idea that maybe, maybe not, he could walk away. adrienne: that zelenskyy could win the election? dasha: no, i asked the president about what his son said, that he might walk away from this altogether.

he said maybe he will, maybe he won't. adrienne: first it was a strong, no, as in my son is night -- son is not right, then he meandered around. i cannot begin to even understand where his head is at when it comes to the ukraine/ russian situation. i think he thought he would have this settled quickly and i think he's mad. someday he's angrier at putin, some days he's angrier at zelenskyy that this has not been settled under his watch. this is something that a majority of americans stand with ukraine. the fact that he's even sent his chief negotiator into russia, where they were rumored to use a blueprint that russia put together to come to an agreement on this, it's incredibly disturbing. the american people, it may not be an issue that drives the midterms, but it's something that continues to add another demerit to trump. dasha: it is a major driving issue in europe.

the widespread consensus among europeans is they want to see ukraine supported in this. they want ukraine to win the war. just before my interview with the president, the administration released this national security strategy document that was a pretty radical departure from how all of the predecessors have you -- have viewed the american and european relationship. i want to talk to you about the president and his language that he used about europe, criticizing america's long-held allies. you can imagine some leaders in europe are a little freaked out by what your posture is. pres. trump: they should be freaked out by what they are doing to their country. they are destroying their countries. the people i like. there are people i like. i get along with them, you know that, but they cannot let this happen. it gets to a point where you cannot correct it. there will be a point. dasha: what will that mean?

pres. trump: it will mean they will no longer be strong nations. dasha: does that mean they won't be allies? pres. trump: it depends. they will change their ideology obviously, because the people coming and have a different ideology. -- in have a different ideology. it will make them much weaker. and they will be much different. dasha: what will that mean for our relationship? pres. trump: look at your mayor of london, he's a disaster. he has a totally different ideology of what he's supposed to have, and he gets elected because of many people have come in. i hate what has happened to london and i hate what is happened to paris. i hate when i see it. dasha: it's sometimes hard to tell, when you say these things, do you intend to send a message of tough love to our allies to push them to make reforms? or do you think many of them are weak and you don't want to be allies with them? pres. trump: i think they are weak, but i also think they want

to be so politically correct. i think they don't know what to do. europe doesn't know what to do. they don't know what to do on trade either. europe, they want to be political correct command that is what makes them weak. dasha: it sounds like you want to see some massive changes. pres. trump: i think they should get the people out that came into the country illegally. dasha: this was such a striking part of the interview for me. the amount of time the president has spent on foreign policy, the leaders he's rolled out the red carpet for at the white house, chummy with keir starmer, with mark rutte, a lot of the folks from those european countries that he was just criticizing there. to me, it's just interesting to see this dichotomy between the much friendlier relationships that he has this time around than he did in the first term.

at the same time, this is such a stark departure from what u.s./eu relations of looked like. marc: i agree with the president on much of this. much of europe has gone socialist in their economies. i think their migration policies are creating enormous challenges for them demographically. i think the president is right on that. having said that, i think it is a non sequitur to then say i think europe is headed in the wrong direction, so therefore i will side with putin in overtaking ukraine. there are different issues. i can agree with what the president says about europe, but i don't think that means you necessarily embrace putin's invasion. dasha: what about our involvement? he said he would consider endorsing elections. he's endorsed viktor orban. he's looking to put his thumb on the scale to make sure europe

moves in the direction he wants to see. marc: in light of some of our trade policies, that will not help the candidates he wants to get behind. if he's endorsing candidates in europe, it would work against him. adrienne: i agree with the last point. a lot of leaders in europe would prefer not to have donald trump's endorsement. not to harken back to the 2024 and 2016 campaigns, both of which i was on for the democrats, where we say he embraces dictators over leaders in democracies. he loves dictators. he sees them as strongmen, as strong, not weak. he thinks people that lead democracies in european countries tend to be weak. that does not put us in a good place with our allies and it goes back to the trade and tariff policy marc was talking

about. a lot of these european countries, and trying to -- instead of trying to negotiate with president trump, they are going to china and saying let's make a deal with you. dasha: you mentioned 2028 and the potential of a democrat in the white house. should a democrat end up in the oval, do you think our relationships in europe revert back to the way they were, or does this change things forever? adrienne: whether it's a democrat or republican, the next president will have a lot of work to do to repair our relationships with our allies. if i was advising either a democratic incoming president, listen up to everyone who will run. i would start doing the repair work asap. we have so much work to do. i also think there are plenty of leaders around the world who are looking at president trump and

saying he's only going to be there for another three years, we just have to get through this period. we know, or hope the u.s. will go back to a time where our allies are respected by the sitting president of the united states. dasha: i am fascinated by the question of what happens after trump, what happens to democrats, what happens to republicans. the president is term limited. there's been speculation already about who will be the next gop front-runner and how the maga movement survives after trump is out of office. let's listen to a final portion of our interview. the future of the republican party. i watched all of your campaigns pull together an unprecedented coalition to win the presidency. you brought in so many new voters to the republican party, chipped away at the core basis of the democratic party. is there anyone else in the gop that can analyze -- that can

energize the coalition the way you do? pres. trump: you never know until they are tested. you jump in the water, some people can swim and some people can't. you never know. i think we have a very good bench. we have a great cabinet. i have a really great cabinet. better than my first cabinet. i had very good people in my first cabinet. when it first came to washington, i did not know anything about any of the people . i was a very successful guy from new york city real estate and other things. i had a great show, but basically real estate. by the way, i'm making the white house beautiful and doing a ballroom and all of that, but you never know -- your question is interesting, you never know until they get tested. i hope so. dasha: marc, whether you agree or disagree with him, he has

completely changed the republican party and even the policy stuff we are talking about we would never be talking about under another republican president. what happens from here? marc: i think he's one-of-a-kind. i don't think there will be somebody succeeding the mantle of maga world the way donald trump has. i think there will be a robust effort inside of the republican party about where our future belongs. he brought in new voters to our party, blue-collar voters across the midwest. all the times i traveled on the campaign in 2016 and 2020 and probably attended 100 rallies altogether, i never heard those voters say, i hope america has more state owned enterprises. i really hope we raise the minimum wage. i hope we have more involvement in our economy. i think a lot of republicans misinterpreted what that vote was.

i think it was more cultural, that there was a backlash to the obama years and trump promised to go to washington and rip it up. i think republicans instead say trump won that blue-collar vote because he embraced labor union economics. i think that is a big mistake for our party if we are trying to become democrat lite. i think there will be a much bigger robust philosophical argument inside our party about what direction we go when we move past president trump. dasha: i think there's a big debate for democrats too. the democrats have spent so long figuring out how to respond to trump, trying to resist trump, basing messages off of what trump is doing. how do democrats navigate a pos t trump world? adrienne: first of all, i was on hillary's campaign in 2016. it was a close election. she lost -- dasha: we are not going there.

[laughter] adrienne: but under eight years of obama, i think people were looking for a change, and trump benefited from that. he was able to grow this maga coalition into what it is today. who can do that for the republican party? trump is one-of-a-kind, no question. two, how do democrats seize on that? we were given a roadmap a few weeks ago in the '25 off year elections, new jersey's governors race, the supreme court race. democrats over performed because they focused on the economy and affordability. we brought back some of those voters. those races on the ballot, which does not portend to be a guarantee for the midterms, but a lot of voters we have been losing, younger men and latino

voters started to come back into our coalition. time will tell if we keep that consistent. drawing the contrast on affordability and the economy is step number one. 2020, a lot of swing voters, there's a very small sliver of the electorate -- [laughter] dasha: i have interviewed every single one of them in my travels. adrienne: they wanted consistency. they wanted seasoned and boring and someone who will run the country, because he had been in the white house before. joe biden benefited from that. 2028, democratic voters, swing voters want a fighter, someone who will restore civility to our government, but also someone who will fight. i think that is where you will see a robust primary play out among democrats to see who will be the street fighter, but also bring working-class voters. we are starting to get back into the fold. dasha: i did not want to jump

into your time machine to 2016, but i want you both to jump into my time machine. i want to turn to this week's c-span flashback, where we dig deep into the video archives to show you a moment in political history. this week marks 25 years since the united states supreme court ruled that george w. bush won the 25 electoral votes for florida, making him the official winner of the 2000 over time election against al gore. here's a portion of al gore's concession speech, followed by president-elect bush. mr. gore: now the u.s. supreme court has spoken. let there be no doubt, while i strongly disagree with the court's decision, ii accept it. i accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified in next monday in the electoral college. and tonight for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, i

offer my concession. i personally will be at his disposal, and i call on all americans. i particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. this is america. just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. and while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. pres. bush: our country has been through a long and trying period with the outcome of the election not finalized for longer than any of us could imagine. we have discussed our differences. now it is time to find common ground and build consensus to make america a beacon of opportunity in the 21st century. i'm optimistic this can happen. our future demands it.

and our history proves it. i have faith that with god's help, we as a nation will move forward as one nation, indivisible. dasha: 25 years ago. there was a time when people thought american politics could not get crazier than that. marc: i probably disagree with al gore on almost every issue but i admire his ability to accept the results of the electoral college and the court decisions in bringing us back together after a divisive election. adrienne: a little bit of ptsd. i long for the days of bush v. gore. that is where you saw two people that put their country first. vice president pentz made it clear he would show up at president biden's swearing in. it was a big unifying moment for the country. we just need to get back to civility. dasha: this is why we have

ceasedfire-- ceasefire. it is a sacred place where we can celebrate civility and partnership. republican strategist marc short and adrienne elrod, thank you. we will close this week's program with our ceasefire moment of the week, highlighting what is possible when politicians come together as americans. a bipartisan effort to crack down on foreign scammers targeting americans moves forward in the house. the bill would create an interagency task force that would aim to shut down overseas skimming syndicates. here is indiana republican congressman jefferson shreve, who sponsored the bill, and delaware democratic congresswoman sarah mcbride talking about why the legislation is so important. >> the fbi reports americans lost roughly $17 billion to scams in 2024, with indiana

being the second most targeted state per capita. this means real-world impacts for everyday americans, my constituents and colleagues. families lose their homes. retirees see their savings vanish overnight, and countless innocent victims are left with little to nothing. my dismantling foreign syndicates act establishes an interagency task force chaired by our secretary of state to dismantle and shut down the transnational criminal syndicates, perpetuating mass online scam operations. >> i'm glad to see democrats and republicans can come together to find solutions to problems all of our constituents share. this bill will improve coordination with our allies around the world, hold these nefarious actors accountable, and stylish a framework to assist americans. we must ensure that delaware yens and all-americans are not scammed out of their hard living -- their hard earned living.

i believe this bill will improve the lives of my constituents and all-americans. dasha: the dismantle for an scams syndicate act passed the house foreign affairs committee and is advancing to the house floor for a full vote. there's a bipartisan push in the senate for similar legislation. that's all the time we have for this episode. join us next time as i sit down with pennsylvania democratic senator john fetterman and alabama republican senator katie britt. ceasefire is also available as a podcast. i'm dasha burns. whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening. ♪ >> friday on c-span's ceasefire, at a time when finding ground -- finding common ground matters most in washington, john fetterman and katie britt come

together for a bipartisan dialogue on the top issues facing the country. they join host dasha burns. dasha: bridging the divide in american politics. >> watch ceasefire friday at 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern and pacific, only on c-span. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter medications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> at his news conference, house democratic leader hakeem jeffries talked about the need to par